[nfbcs] {Disarmed} Captchas
Frendly_Nadia
blindhelpfultech at gmail.com
Sat Mar 31 21:23:38 UTC 2012
Waste of time i agree, my family asks me if i can read them and i have
to pull out webvison in order to get past them for them. even better
the new ones don't work. may i mind you this is when firefox is even
on the persons computer. As for audio challenges those have a lot of
background noise and spacing in between them. I say there is got to be
a more logical way of going about this. I mean we are in the 21st
century. I wanted to ask you something too, what would you all think
if tomorrow the ADA also included Internet and W3C guide lines. It
might just be a dream for me, but there would be a lot less crappy
websites out there. Than again, it needs to be enforced or it is
pointless. A lot of things work in theory but not in practicality.
On 3/31/12, Curtis Chong <curtischong at earthlink.net> wrote:
> Greetings:
>
> Is this supposed to suggest an improvement that works better for the blind?
> It does not appear so from what I see here<grin>.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Curtis Chong
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nfbcs-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:nfbcs-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf
> Of Nicole B. Torcolini at Home
> Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2012 1:21 AM
> To: NFBCS Mailing List List
> Subject: [nfbcs] {Disarmed} Captchas
>
> I was going to just post the link, but, when I read the last line, I just
> had to post the article instead.
>
> Time to Kill Off Captchas
> How the bot-proofing of the Internet is bringing humans down
>
> By David Pogue | February 28, 2012 | 18
>
>
>
> a.. Share
> b.. Email
> c.. Print
> d..
> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=time-to-kill-off-captchas
>
>
>
> Time to Kill Off Captchas
>
>
>
> Whenever there’s a problem in the modern world, we try to solve it by
> building barriers. Music piracy? Copy protection. Hacked Web sites? More
> complicated passwords.
>
> Unfortunately, these barriers generally inconvenience the law-abiding
> citizen and do very little to impede the bad guys. Serious music pirates and
> Web hackers still find their way through.
>
> Maybe all the hurdles are enough to thwart the casual bad guys. That seems
> to be the thinking behind the Web blockades known as Captchas. (It’s a
> contrived acronym for Completely Automated Public Turing Test to Tell
> Computers and Humans Apart.) Surely you’ve seen them: visually distorted
> words—sometimes real English ones and sometimes nonsense words—represented
> as a graphic when you try to sign up for something online. You’re supposed
> to type the words you see into a box.
>
> Captchas were designed by their Carnegie Mellon University inventors to
> thwart bots (automated hacker programs) that might bring online services to
> their knees. For example, some bots sign up for Hotmail or Yahoo e-mail
> accounts by the thousands for the purpose of spewing spam. Some post bogus
> comments in hopes of raising a site’s search-results ranking.
>
> In theory, only an actual human being can figure out what word is in the
> Captcha graphic. The letters are just twisted enough and the background is
> just cluttered enough that a person can read them, but not a computer. Good
> guys in, bad guys out—the perfect barrier.
>
> In practice, Captchas have just replaced one public nuisance with another.
> First of all, the images are often so distorted that even a human can’t read
> them. That’s a particular problem in nonsense words like “rl10Ozirl.” Are
> those lowercase Ls or number ones? Zero or letter O? Second, there’s the
> vision thing. If you’re blind, you can’t do a visual Captcha puzzle.
>
> The best Captchas (if that’s not an oxymoron) offer alternatives to fix
> these problems. There might be a button that offers you a second puzzle if
> the first is too hard to read or an audio Captcha option for blind people.
> Above all, though, increasing evidence shows that Captchas are losing the
> technology war. Researchers and spammers have both been able to get around
> them.
>
> There have been efforts to replace visual Captchas with less user-hostile
> puzzles. Some ask you to take an easy math test, answer a simple question,
> identify a photograph or listen to garbled audio. All of them exclude one
> group or another, though—such as non-English speakers or deaf people.
>
> Overall, the Carnegie Mellon team estimates that we spend a cumulative
> 150,000 hours at the gates of these irritating obstructions every single
> day. In a newer variant, called reCaptcha, at least that time is put to
> public use. You see a muddied-looking word that comes from a wonky scanned
> Google book; when you type what it really says, you’re actually helping out
> with the process of cleaning up and recognizing an actual text.
>
> Nevertheless, we the law abiders are still wasting 17 person-years every
> single day. That’s a disgraceful waste of our lives. Surely there are better
> solutions worth exploring.
>
> Maybe we should invent a voluntary Internet identity card so we’re already
> known when we sign up for something. Maybe Web sites should enforce a
> short-term limit of one new account or posted comment per “person.” Or the
> Web site should look at the speed or irregularity of our typing to determine
> if we’re human.
>
> Or fingerprints. Or retinal scans. Something.
>
> Spammer bots are a problem, yes. But Captchas are a problem, too. They’re a
> bother, they’re not foolproof and they assume that everyone is guilty until
> proven innocent. What Captcha really stands for, in other words, is
> Computers Annoying People with Time-Wasting Challenges That Howl for
> Alternatives.
>
>
>
>
>
> Image: Illustration by Thomas Fuchs
>
> Supplemental Material
> a.. Overview Use It Better: 8 Alternatives to the Hated Captcha
> Whenever there’s a problem in the modern world, we try to solve it by
> building barriers. Music piracy? Copy protection. Hacked Web sites? More
> complicated passwords.
>
> Unfortunately, these barriers generally inconvenience the law-abiding
> citizen and do very little to impede the bad guys. Serious music pirates and
> Web hackers still find their way through.
>
> Maybe all the hurdles are enough to thwart the casual bad guys. That seems
> to be the thinking behind the Web blockades known as Captchas. (It’s a
> contrived acronym for Completely Automated Public Turing Test to Tell
> Computers and Humans Apart.) Surely you’ve seen them: visually distorted
> words—sometimes real English ones and sometimes nonsense words—represented
> as a graphic when you try to sign up for something online. You’re supposed
> to type the words you see into a box.
>
> Captchas were designed by their Carnegie Mellon University inventors to
> thwart bots (automated hacker programs) that might bring online services to
> their knees. For example, some bots sign up for Hotmail or Yahoo e-mail
> accounts by the thousands for the purpose of spewing spam. Some post bogus
> comments in hopes of raising a site’s search-results ranking.
>
> In theory, only an actual human being can figure out what word is in the
> Captcha graphic. The letters are just twisted enough and the background is
> just cluttered enough that a person can read them, but not a computer. Good
> guys in, bad guys out—the perfect barrier.
>
> In practice, Captchas have just replaced one public nuisance with another.
> First of all, the images are often so distorted that even a human can’t read
> them. That’s a particular problem in nonsense words like “rl10Ozirl.” Are
> those lowercase Ls or number ones? Zero or letter O? Second, there’s the
> vision thing. If you’re blind, you can’t do a visual Captcha puzzle.
>
> The best Captchas (if that’s not an oxymoron) offer alternatives to fix
> these problems. There might be a button that offers you a second puzzle if
> the first is too hard to read or an audio Captcha option for blind people.
> Above all, though, increasing evidence shows that Captchas are losing the
> technology war. Researchers and spammers have both been able to get around
> them.
>
> There have been efforts to replace visual Captchas with less user-hostile
> puzzles. Some ask you to take an easy math test, answer a simple question,
> identify a photograph or listen to garbled audio. All of them exclude one
> group or another, though—such as non-English speakers or deaf people.
>
> Overall, the Carnegie Mellon team estimates that we spend a cumulative
> 150,000 hours at the gates of these irritating obstructions every single
> day. In a newer variant, called reCaptcha, at least that time is put to
> public use. You see a muddied-looking word that comes from a wonky scanned
> Google book; when you type what it really says, you’re actually helping out
> with the process of cleaning up and recognizing an actual text.
>
> Nevertheless, we the law abiders are still wasting 17 person-years every
> single day. That’s a disgraceful waste of our lives. Surely there are better
> solutions worth exploring.
>
> Maybe we should invent a voluntary Internet identity card so we’re already
> known when we sign up for something. Maybe Web sites should enforce a
> short-term limit of one new account or posted comment per “person.” Or the
> Web site should look at the speed or irregularity of our typing to determine
> if we’re human.
>
> Or fingerprints. Or retinal scans. Something.
>
> Spammer bots are a problem, yes. But Captchas are a problem, too. They’re a
> bother, they’re not foolproof and they assume that everyone is guilty until
> proven innocent. What Captcha really stands for, in other words, is
> Computers Annoying People with Time-Wasting Challenges That Howl for
> Alternatives.
>
>
>
>
> Subscribe Buy This Issue
>
> Already a Digital subscriber? Sign-in Now
> If your institution has site license access, enter here.
> ABOUT THE AUTHOR(S)
> David Pogue is the personal-technology columnist for the New York Times. He
> is the host of "Hunting the Elements" on NOVA, which airs April 4 on PBS.
>
>
>
> Post a Comment | Read Comments (18)
> Reprints and Permissions »
> inShare37
>
> Articles You Might Also Like
> a.. Use It Better: 8 Alternatives to the Hated Captcha
> b.. Use It Better: The Worst Tech Predictions of All Time
> c.. Use It Better: The Smart Ways to Pick Passwords
> d.. How Siri Makes Computers (and Coders) More Human
> e.. How to Predict the Future of Technology
> 18 Comments
> Add Comment
> Show All | Jump To: 1-10 | 11-20 | Next
> View Oldest to Newest Newest to Oldest
> 1..
> 1. bikerusl 02:10 AM 2/17/12
> This article is so incredibly wrong I felt compelled to go on the
> internet and comment on it after reading it in print.
>
> This is supposed to be a scientific magazine, where is the evidence that
> Captcha is failing? I might as well be reading this on about.com or some
> other robot created website. How did you come up with that 17 years per day
> figure, is that really counting accurately?
>
> Captcha is annoying, the only thing more annoying would be all of the
> suggestions you propose. All of your suggestions have more problems - and
> serious ones - instead of annoying ones.
>
> Internet identity card? Retina scan? Fingerprint? Privacy? Free speech?
> Simplicity? Do you mean like a password username combo? The point of a
> captcha is to be something quick that doesn't require that sort of
> commitment. I think it is telling that this article has no other comments
> but mine - there is no possible quick way to post one. Such as a captcha
> would afford.
>
> Time limit? Single post only? Heuristics of words used or typing style?
> Have you ever failed those things? I have. It is a heck of a lot worse than
> having to redo an illegible captcha. Because it is mysterious. I have no
> idea what is causing me to be flagged by mistake - is it a link? Am I too
> fast a typer? Too slow? The mechanism is not transparent and they are
> totally intolerant of false positives. At least with a captcha the system is
> transparent. I know why I pass or fail. I know what I have to do to pass.
> (at least for a properly implemented captcha system like reCaptch - which is
> also the most popular and easy for websites to install)
>
> Just because you are annoyed by using captchas you can't just write an
> article about something you haven't really thought through. I'm thankful
> when I see a Captcha as I know that the security mechanism is going to be
> transparent and honest. The alternatives (so far) are far worse and might
> even bring up more serious concerns of privacy, free speech and censorship
> if they were to be implemented.
>
> Your opening line about making too many barriers on the internet is
> right on. However I think that, upon closer examination, something like
> captcha that is transparently enforced - is the better way to avoid real
> barriers including spam - compared to the highly questionable alternatives
> you have (so far) proposed.
>
> The Internet is an amazing thing. Just because it can
>
> Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
> 2..
> 2. crashbrown 11:01 AM 2/19/12
> I am guessing David Pogue does not have first-hand experience with any
> of the internet entities (blog, forum, etc) that are being hit the hardest
> by spammers. If he did, he would not think of -- let alone suggest -- doing
> away with captcha unless he had an actual, functioning alternative ready to
> take its place.
>
> I am part of a team that runs an online forum (bulletin board). It is
> both tiny and obscure, and yet it averages over three dozen registration
> attempts per day by both human spammers and spambots. We go through phases
> when we are hit hundreds of times each day. Captcha is one of three methods
> we employ to keep them out.
>
> The article states, "Spammer bots are a problem, yes. But Captchas are a
> problem, too." I am a little agog at this. I feel like a front-line combat
> soldier listening to a rear echelon desk jockey compare artillery shells to
> the hassle of wearing a helmet. The latter is occasionally uncomfortable.
> The former can drop your site by overloading your server, and once the
> spambots are gotten in, the amount of work to get rid of them is many times
> greater than the brief nuisance of asking people to decipher some twisty
> letters.
>
> I eagerly await a better alternative; but for the moment, captcha
> remains a highly effective element in the defenses required to fend off the
> spambarian hordes.
>
> Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
> 3..
> 3. bob_easton 08:29 AM 2/20/12
> Yes, Mr. Pogue's article is a bit light from the "Scientific" point of
> view. The figure of 150,000 hours per day comes directly from the home page
> for Google's captcha product, reCaptcha.
> (http://www.google.com/recaptcha/learnmore) Simple math divides 150,000 by
> 24 and then by 365, to yield 17 days.
>
> Proof of CAPTCHAs decreasing usefulness is easy to find. Google's own
> actions are prime evidence. On Feb 16, 2012 they changed Blogger's CAPTCHA
> technique from something almost usable to a much more complex reCaptcha
> scheme. Why would they annoy millions of readers? Likely because the older
> CAPTCHA was no longer useful! All across the Internet we see service
> providers upgrading their CAPTCHAs to ever more complex versions. It is
> implicit evidence that the spammers are effective. The CAPTCHA arms race is
> on and the innocent humans are losing.
>
> For a more concrete example, researchers at Newcastle University in the
> UK have developed automated methods that solve even the latest reCaptchas
> easier than humans. Read "The Robustness of Google CAPTCHAs" at
> http://homepages.cs.ncl.ac.uk/jeff.yan/google.pdf. One need not be a geeky
> doctoral candidate in academia to do this. We see evidence of it's reality
> in that war of escalation.
>
> Solutions? The best are behind-the-scenes engines that use massive
> collaborative filtering to recognize and reject spam. Once these systems
> reach a viable size, in terms of network deployment and sampling scope, they
> become extremely effective. Two that have reached that high level of
> effectiveness are AKISMET and the Spam-Be-Gone feature of Disqus commenting
> systems. (hint: search easily finds these tools.)
>
> A small business, an individual blogger, the community bulletin board
> owner can all fare well with Akismet. Larger firms often replace their
> content management system's entire commenting facility with Disqus. Neither
> of these systems challenge readers / visitors / customers with annoying
> CAPTCHAs. They allow security to be implemented by the service provider, not
> a task left to the end user.
>
> Other solutions? For those who develop their own code, there are a
> number of useful "client side" techniques that spammers can't see or
> subvert. Too little space to describe here, so search for "hidden input
> field."
>
> Lastly, as for being "thankful" when I see a CAPTCHA, I get about the
> same feeling as when I see a blue uniformed TSA agent. They both share two
> traits: the ability to stop one's travel, and an unnecessary level of
> annoyance.
>
> Bob Easton, author of the blog "CAPTCHAs Must Die"
>
>
> Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
> 4..
> 4. sagamore9 12:08 PM 2/27/12
> I agree with the other commentors here. An internet ID card. I know Sci
> Am is an establishment magazine and while I enjoy the knowledge imparted
> here, please don't try to condition the public into big brotherism. While
> captchas are annoying, I haven't found one that I couldn't decipher after a
> few reloads. I too question the statistics quoted, a quick footnote of his
> sources would clear that up. My main complaint is the social concerns he
> raises. I know liberals would love the gov't to ensure all is safe, just let
> me opt out of that totalitarianism, we still live in a free america (maybe).
>
> Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
> 5..
> 5. jtdwyer 08:38 AM 2/28/12
> I find it ironic that SA should attack Captcha use by other sites, when
> this site was infuriatingly cursed by advertiser spamming of its comments
> for many, many months! Personally, I would have gladly endured the
> inconvenience of Captcha use to have prevented that prolonged spamming of
> scientificamerican.com.
>
> Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
> 6..
> 6. Paleoecologist 11:03 AM 2/28/12
> I'm really surprised that the awesome crowd-sourcing side of Captchas
> haven't been mentioned yet! reCaptcha is a book digitization project that's
> helped digitize 20 years of the New York Times, among other things. Whenever
> I do one of those, I get a little warm and fuzzy inside.
>
> Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
> 7..
> 7. nogero 12:24 PM 2/28/12
> It is worth noting that comment giant craigslist.org has recently
> eliminated captcha when posting. At least they did for me.
>
> Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
> 8..
> 8. silvrhairdevil in reply to sagamore9 02:16 PM 2/28/12
> You are not accounting for the facts that,
>
> first - not all internet users are Americans
>
> second - not all internet users want their real identities on record
>
> Third - most spammers are not Americans either. The vast majority are
> from the Far East.
>
> Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
> 9..
> 9. scottpatrickwright 09:40 AM 2/29/12
> The captcha process could probably be improved. A good test would be
> very easy for a human and hard for a computer. I think most people find that
> the average captcha is both hard for a human AND hard for a computer. I
> remember hearing about a new idea under development at Microsoft (of all
> places) called a 'catcha'. The idea was to present, for instance six
> pictures, 5 are puppies and 1 is a cat. The user's job is to select the cat
> from the group. Hence 'catcha'. While realizing that technology will likely
> (hopefully)catch up I think this idea is closer to the easy for humans hard
> for computers mark.
>
> Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
> 10..
> 10. Steve D 12:39 PM 2/29/12
> Instead of criminalizing spam and going through the tedium of
> prosecuting spammers, there's a simpler approach. Tax it. A buck a message.
> Per addressee.
>
> But that will penalize legitimate e-mail ads? Too bad. If people want
> something, they can take the initiative to find out about it. The
> advertising business model needs to die - period.
>
>
>
> Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
> 11..
> 11. Steve3 01:37 PM 2/29/12
> Yeah yeah yeah Dave -- er -- we all waste time everyday- What's new?
> Taking the key out of my pocket unlocking my door, my file cabinet
> etc.Locking the keypad on my NOT iPhone etc.
> Come to think of it reading the column was a waste of time and so was
> typing this..............
>
> Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
> 12..
> 12. mhenriday in reply to silvrhairdevil 03:23 PM 3/1/12
> �Third - most spammers are not Americans either. The vast majority are
> from the Far East.�, Perhaps, silvrhairdevil, you would care to produce some
> evidence for this interesting claim (in which, I suspect, the term Far East
> is a metonym for China) ? According to the latest figures from ICSA Labs'
> Spam Data Center
> (https://www.icsalabs.com/technology-program/anti-spam/spam-data-center#top10),
> which relate to the week from 13 to 19 February 2012, the country of origin
> at the head of the list of the top ten was the US, at 10.1 % of the total,
> with India second at 7.5 %. While geography seems to be poorly taught today
> (consider, for example, how the term �the West� is employed), I think we can
> agree that neither of these two countries are located in the Far East. The
> first East Asian country to appear on the list is South Korea, in fourth
> place at 4.8 %. Taiwan is seventh (3.5 %) and Vietnam (3.0 %) ninth. China,
> with its huge internet population doesn't even make the top ten....
>
> Generally speaking, it is wise to do one's research before posting,
> rather than afterwards....
>
> Henri
>
> Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
> 13..
> 13. northernguy 12:59 AM 3/2/12
> I am amazed at the arrogance of posters on this topic. Captchas are not
> an inconvenience for me. They are an insurmountable obstacle.
>
> The hundreds of captchas that I have run across over the years have
> blocked my access on every occasion except two. I refresh them dozens of
> times to no avail. The audio alternatives are even worse.
>
> I have no issue with those people who design their sites in such a way
> as to exclude people because the programmers are not capable or not inclined
> to program their site to be inclusive. However, I do have an issue with
> those designers who say it is not a problem at all because it is not a
> problem for them.
>
> If you don't want me to visit or use your site then fine. Just don't say
> it's me that has a problem.
>
> Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
> 14..
> 14. rksudhir 05:02 PM 3/2/12
> Wow.. 17 person-years wasted every single day which could've been spent
> on Facebook!
>
> May be we should come up with Captchas that are fun and brain-teasers..
> so people will just want to solve them again and again, instead of Scrabble,
> or Sudoku.
>
> Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
> 15..
> 15. PolishMartian in reply to mhenriday 07:19 AM 3/3/12
> When you told silvrhairdevil: "Generally speaking, it is wise to do
> one's research before posting, rather than afterwards...." you forgot to
> mention something important upfront from your reference to "the latest
> figures from ICSA Labs' Spam Data Center
> (https://www.icsalabs.com/technology-program/anti-spam/spam-data-center#top10)..."
> That is, that ICSA Labs is not a non-profit organization (.org) like some
> labs which do (anti)virus and other (anti)malware testing, but rather a
> commercial for-profit company (.com), an independent division of Verizon
> Business. They do efficiency tests for customers that produce anti-spam
> products. This information and that below comes from the report "ICSA Labs
> Anti-Spam Testing Revealed" dated 18 May 2011 [Copyright 2011 by Cybertrust,
> Inc.]
> (https://www.icsalabs.com/sites/default/files/AntiSpamTestingExplained_110518x.pdf).
>
> Customers can choose from either daily live testing or certification
> testing. I saw no prices listed, but why would two different choices be
> offered otherwise and why would there be any comparisons between ICSA Labs
> and its competitors? I saw no endorsements or list of user companies to use
> as a guide. So, why should we trust just one company's statistics over
> another's? Do you have some similar percentages from another company to help
> prove your point? Some security products (free and paid) are rated much
> higher or lower than others, so couldn't the same be true for some of the
> paid labs?
>
> The ICSA Labs material describes how it gets its data from a honeypot,
> which sources of email it samples and which sources it doesn't use at all. I
> don't feel completely comfortable with their sampling techniques, some of
> which they called negotiable for the future.
>
> Also, I don't believe they or their competitors test spam found in
> comments on various forums, blogs, etc. Those may not be emails that we have
> to remove from our Inbox or Junk/Spam folders, but they're still spam (not
> just stupid comments) which we users have to waste time reading (and
> hopefully flagging).
>
> Percentages by country MIGHT differ if this other spam were counted,
> based on samples other users and I have tracked back manually using
> linguistic analysis, Whois, user comments, etc. That's probably where some
> impressions of higher Chinese amounts arise, but I know of no plausible way
> to get accurate stats on that manually or otherwise. The U.S. and Russia are
> bad spammers (both kinds), but no area has a majority, so silvrhairdevil's
> actual claim isn't supportable and my estimates would only be unprovable
> guesses.
>
> Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
> 16..
> 16. silvrhairdevil 02:52 PM 3/3/12
> My "guesstimates" are derived from empirical experience cleaning
> spammers out of an online forum, not the ones that put Viagra offers in your
> email.
>
> Far Eastern spammers, to which I loosely ascribe China, India,
> Indonesia, Pakistan are the ones that join a forum and dump a load of spam.
> They are mostly spambots, churned out by the thousands.
>
> Russia and Germany both contribute a lot of spam and African spammers
> are usually email harvesters who will sell your email to the Nigerian lawyer
> who wants to give you your inheritance.
>
> Very little of the spam I deal with is from the US or Canada.
>
> I did my research - YMMV
>
>
>
> Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
> 17..
> 17. ThomasWeb 11:04 PM 3/3/12
> I once made the mistake of establishing a non-captcha forum. Within a
> day it was deluged with over 250 spam entries.
>
> Ironic: In order to post this comment, I had to:
> - Register
> - Go to my e-mail to verify
> - Return here to log in.
> That required a great deal more time than a captcha.
>
> Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
> 18..
> 18. ctisn 06:40 PM 3/7/12
> Here's an alternative to CAPTCHA that I really like:
> http://demo.confidenttechnologies.com/captcha/
>
> Just click the "Click Here" button to launch it and then follow the
> instructions to click on the correct pictures. It's so much faster and
> easier than trying to decipher warped letters.
>
> They say it's more secure than using words because bots aren't able to
> make a judgement about what the subject matter of each picture is.
>
> Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
> | Jump To: 1-10 | 11-20 |
> Leave this field empty
> Add a Comment
> You must log in or register as a ScientificAmerican.com member to submit a
> comment.
> Ads by Google
>
> Network Analysis Software
> Monitor Your Business' Network w/
> Live Maps & Alerts. Get Free Trial!
> InterMapper.com
>
> Learn to Hack
> Learn Hacking Skills & Get A Cert.
> Degree in Network Security!
> UAT.edu
>
> University of Phoenix®
> Official Site. College Degrees for
> the Real World. Learn More Today.
> Phoenix.edu
>
>
> Advertisement
> Follow Scientific American
> a.. Emailb.. RSSc.. Facebookd.. Twittere.. YouTubef.. iTunes
> Scientific American Newsletter
> Get weekly coverage delivered to your inbox.
>
>
> Latest Headlines
> a.. Smells Like Old Times
> Scientific American Mind 1 hour ago
> b.. Edges of Perception
> Scientific American Mind 1 hour ago
> c.. The Secrets of Self-Improvement
> Scientific American Mind 1 hour ago
> Most Read
> a.. The Inspiration Paradox: Your Best Creative Time Is Not When You Think
> Mind Matters Mar 6, 2012 | 14
> b.. In-Your-Face: Can Computers Catch You Telling a Lie?
> Features Mar 5, 2012 | 10
> c.. Could a Penny Dropped Off a Skyscraper Actually Kill You?
> News Mar 5, 2012 | 13
> Most Commented
> a.. Japan's Post-Fukushima Earthquake Health Woes Go Beyond Radiation
> Effects
> News Mar 2, 2012 | 58
> b.. New Storage Projects Turns CO2 into Stone
> Climatewire Mar 5, 2012 | 38
> c.. Recent Snowy Winters Possibly Set Off by Rapidly Melting Arctic
> Climatewire Feb 28, 2012 | 31
> Latest Posts by SA Editors
> a.. What is: Petridish.org?
> STAFFThe Network Central 13 hours ago
> b.. What is: SciBarCamb?
> STAFFThe Network Central Mar 6, 2012
> c.. #SciAmBlogs Monday - ponytail physics, hydra eyes, Bronx zoo monkeys,
> caracals, Glee, color pink, and more.
> STAFFThe Network Central Mar 6, 2012
> d.. Open Laboratory 2013 - submissions so far
> STAFFThe Network Central Mar 5, 2012
> e.. Clocks in Bacteria V: How about E.coli?
> STAFFA Blog Around The Clock Mar 5, 2012
> Latest from SA Blog Network
> a.. Chemical relaxers, fibroids and black women: how it ALL started
> The Urban Scientist 4 hours ago
> b.. Combination of "Deaf and Mute" May Have Neural Underpinnings
> Observations 9 hours ago
> c.. M lange et Trois: A Trip Across Subduction Zone Madness
> Guest Blog 13 hours ago
> d.. Deafening Birdsong
> The Scicurious Brain 13 hours ago
> e.. Disease Prone on FiSTChat!
> Disease Prone 15 hours ago
>
> YES! Send me a free issue of Scientific American with no obligation to
> continue the subscription. If I like it, I will be billed for the one-year
> subscription.
>
>
> Email Address Name
>
> Advertisement
> Science Jobs of the Week
> a.. Institute Research Investigator MD Anderson Cancer Center
> b.. Histotechnician - IHC CBLPath
> c.. Postdoctoral Fellow - Chemistry / PDM Pfizer Inc.
> d.. Postdoctoral Scientist (Immunobiology) APCure
> e.. Managing Editor, The Lancet Journals Elsevier
> f.. More jobs from Naturejobs.com »
> Advertisement
>
> Scientific American is a trademark of Scientific American, Inc., used with
> permission
>
> © 2012 Scientific American, a Division of Nature America, Inc. View Mobile
> Site All Rights Reserved.
> a.. Advertise
> b.. About Scientific American
> c.. Subscribe
> d.. Special Ad Sections
> e.. Press Room
> f.. Renew Your Subscription
> g.. Science Jobs
> h.. Site Map
> i.. Buy Back Issues
> j.. Partner Network
> k.. Terms of Use
> l.. Products & Services
> m.. International Editions
> n.. Privacy Policy
> o.. Subscriber Customer Service
> a.. Contact Us
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> nfbcs mailing list
> nfbcs at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbcs_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for nfbcs:
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbcs_nfbnet.org/blindhelpfultech%40gmail.com
>
More information about the NFBCS
mailing list